It’s no secret that high dynamic range is one of the key elements needed to achieve a cinematic look.
This is of course because most of us do equate “movie” with “movie” (whether we realize it or not), and images traditionally shot on film have a greater dynamic range than digital lenses…except for reverse film outside of that, but that’s for another article.
Until cameras like the Arri Alexa came along and proved that high DR was possible with digital cameras, digital cinematography of any kind was associated with low dynamic range, highlight clipping, and a low-quality aesthetic.
A lot has changed in the last 5 years or so, and now we can buy cameras for $1000 (see Blackmagic Pocket Cam) that offer the same dynamic range you’d expect from film. This is incredibly liberating for filmmakers with limited budgets who desperately want to create film-like images but don’t have the budget to shoot actual movies.
At the same time, the democratization of dynamic range has had an unpleasant side effect…
In today’s world of filmmaking, dynamic range is taken so seriously that many filmmakers are afraid to sacrifice dynamic range for style when it comes to color grade.
This is most likely the result of camera manufacturers and marketing companies getting beat up for preaching “more dynamic range = more cinematic images”.
I think this is only half true…
While I do think it’s crucial to capture as much DR as possible, I don’t think it’s necessary to retain all DR in the grade. If anything, I think it can be counterproductive when the main goal is to make something look “cinematic.”
Filmmaking is not just about what you see, it’s also about what you don’t have.
In many cases, a higher contrast image with less dynamic range will leave a greater impression on the viewer than the same image with lower contrast and more DR.
When you can see every detail in highlights and shadows, there’s not much left to the imagination. It also tends to look very fake and synthetic…or sometimes just plain boring.
For example, here are two stills I displayed in RAW format on my Canon 6D. The first grading is to preserve as much DR as possible, the second grading is for the most interesting look, even if it means losing a lot of the coveted dynamic range –
While this is of course just a matter of preference, my choice is always the latter of the two images. Rather than seeing everything at once, it’s much more interesting to use DR (or lack thereof) to draw the viewer into the image.
To use an analogy, consider a shallow depth of field –
In some cases, deep depth of field works better (by allowing the viewer to see everything in the image with equal clarity), but generally, using selective focus is a better option because it helps To guide the viewer to see the most important parts of the image. It’s a more human, organic way of interacting with images.
While most filmmakers seem to understand this concept when it comes to depth of field, few seem to understand how the same logic applies to dynamic range…
Perhaps it is the overemphasis on high DR in today’s filmmaking world (particularly due to the marketing efforts of camera manufacturers) that has led some filmmakers to prioritize DR protection in color grades. Many people focus on the technical achievement of not losing any highlight or shadow detail, while ignoring the larger issue: How does this image make the audience feel?
These days, it’s not uncommon to see finished films made up of unrated original footage. This is often a direct result of filmmakers being very careful when using contrast (as a means to avoid losing even a little bit of dynamic range), with the final product still being so flat that it almost still looks like a wood-colored space.
That’s not to say it looks bad. There is no right or wrong choice when it comes to your aesthetic… You just need to make sure the choices you make are purposeful and ultimately serve your story.
So when it comes to your film, ask yourself – do super flat images evoke the emotions you’re looking for in your audience?
If so, that’s great. More power to you. But if this doesn’t work for your film, don’t feel like you need to go down this road just to prove how much dynamic range your camera sensor has.
For the record, I love high dynamic range sensors. DR is one of the most crucial factors for me when buying a camera… I’ve even written multiple articles on this blog on the subject.
But I would look for a high dynamic range camera so I have options in post, not because I believe my final image needs to squeeze out as much range as possible.
Assuming I plan on doing extensive color grading, having as much DR as possible means I can really fine-tune the amount of DR in the final image.
Even if I end up with broken shadows and overly bright highlights, and even if I can achieve this look with a camera that only shoots 8 stops of DR, I’d still like to have 13 or 14 stops so I can experiment in post.
It’s all about having choices.
It’s not about preserving every last ounce of dynamic range in a color suite – unless there’s a specific creative reason for that.
So as we wrap up, I’ll leave you with this –
Great filmmaking comes from the unique creative choices we make. Don’t let the camera manufacturer tell you what looks good or what is cinematic. Listen to yourself and make your own judgment about what is beautiful. If that happens to be a super flat look, that’s great. But if your story requires a low DR end product, that’s acceptable too.
Increase the value of your production today with my full range of color grading LUTs, film grain and professional post-production assets.
For exclusive filmmaking articles every Sunday, sign up for my newsletter here!
